Ferris et al v. Wynn Resorts Limited et al

Filing 400

ORDER granting 382 Motion for Clarification. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing set for July 8, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. is VACATED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 7/8/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MAM)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 John v. Ferris et al., 5 Plaintiffs, 6 7 Case No. 2:18-cv-00479-APG-BNW v. ORDER Wynn Resorts Limited et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ request for clarification. ECF No. 382. Defendants 11 responded. ECF No. 387. The Court grants the motion and offers the clarification detailed below. 12 Plaintiffs request that the Court clarify the following issues: 13 • 14 15 16 17 18 19 • • • whether this Court’s prior order requires Defendants to prioritize production of discovery concerning both falsity and loss causation as Plaintiffs described in their request for relief under Rule 56(d). whether Defendants’ interpretation of falsity discovery related to the February 12, 2018, corrective disclosures is correct. whether Plaintiffs are permitted to propose additional search terms. the need for Defendants to re-review documents so as to conform with this Court’s prior order. Defendants represent they will produce all discovery at issue by the end of August. Thus, 20 with the understanding that Plaintiffs will have the discovery they need (which includes the 21 discovery needed to address Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment) by the end of 22 August, the Court need not further address what needs to be prioritized. 23 The Court next turns to the “Defendants’ interpretation of falsity discovery related to the 24 February 12, 2018 corrective disclosure.” Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment 25 argues that complaints to the NGCB and LVMPD, and the fact that the NGCB portal was 26 launched, could not have rendered the January 26 statements false because the events reported in 27 those corrective disclosures occurred after January 26. ECF No. 387 at 4. In that vein, they make 28 clear in their motion for partial summary judgment that “[n]either the Company nor Mr. Wynn 1 could have possibly stated anything false or misleading about these complaints because they did 2 not exist on January 26, 2018.” ECF No. 314 at 18. Thus, according to Defendants, “[to] carry 3 their burden on falsity tied to the February 12, 2018 disclosures, Plaintiffs would need to identify 4 a prior representation by Defendants that no additional allegations would surface in the future 5 against Mr. Wynn. Because no such statement exists, Defendants are entitled to summary 6 judgment.” Id. at 17. While the Court acknowledges Defendants’ argument, Judge Gordon will determine 7 8 whether the issue has been properly framed. But the universe of relevant discovery (which 9 includes more than the discovery needed to defend Defendants’ motion for partial summary 10 judgment) includes more than that. This Court referred to Judge Gordon’s prior order in which he 11 found there was a sufficient match between the Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations in their 12 January 26, 2018, press release and the February 2018 disclosures. 1 In turn, this Court clarifies 13 that discovery relating to Steve Wynn’s alleged misconduct is relevant to the falsity of the 14 statements tied to the February 12, 2018, corrective disclosures. Next is the issue of search terms. It appears Defendants have engaged in discussions 15 16 regarding new search terms with Plaintiffs. But this Court did not order the production of the 17 investigation search terms or any original source material about the search terms. Lastly, the Court clarifies that the 2016 alleged misstatements relate to more than the 2005 18 19 settlement and include the alleged attempted cover-up through the use of company resources. In 20 addition, as discussed above, discovery concerning the February 12, 2018, corrective disclosures 21 is not limited to documents discussing price impact. Thus, to the extent that Defendants’ prior 22 discovery review and production was not that inclusive, it must review the documents again and 23 supplement as needed. 24 /// 25 26 27 28 1 “He found that as to each set of statements, plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded the falsity. In addition, he found that there was a sufficient match between each statement and corrective disclosure. And I am referring to the document at 171, Pages 14 through 18, and Document 283, Pages 21 through 22.” ECF No. 373 at 7. Page 2 of 3 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 382) is GRANTED consistent 2 with this order. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing set for July 8, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. is VACATED. 4 5 DATED: July 8, 2024 6 7 8 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?